Karveer Kamgar Sangh vs Maharashtra Government Advocate - M. B. Patil — 127/2022
Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Section 28. Status: Argument. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
Complaint ULP
CNR: MHIC090003102022
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
362/2022
Filing Date
01-12-2022
Registration No
127/2022
Registration Date
01-12-2022
Court
Industrial Court, Kolhapur
Judge
1-Member, Industrial Court No. 1
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Karveer Kamgar Sangh
Adv. B. B. Powar
Respondent(s)
Maharashtra Government Advocate - M. B. Patil
Principal Cheif Conservator of Forest, Nagpur
Chief Conservator of Forest Division, Kolhapur.
Depury Conservator of Forest, Kolhapur
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Member, Industrial Court No. 1
Argument
Argument
Argument
Argument
Evidence of Respondent
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Argument |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 20-02-2026 | Argument |
| 06-02-2026 | Argument |
| 17-01-2026 | Evidence of Respondent |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Industrial Court No. 1, Maharashtra at Kolhapur granted interim relief in favor of Karveer Kamgar Sangh on 18.07.2024. The court allowed the union's application under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, finding a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The respondents (Collector, Kolhapur and forest department officials) were directed to not discontinue the workmen without following due process of law during the pendency of the complaint for permanency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Industrial Court No. 1, Maharashtra at Kolhapur granted interim relief in favor of Karveer Kamgar Sangh on 18.07.2024. The court allowed the union's application under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, finding a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The respondents (Collector, Kolhapur and forest department officials) were directed to not discontinue the workmen without following due process of law during the pendency of the complaint for permanency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts